Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed by a NEET-UG 2026 candidate seeking permission to participate in the 15 per cent All India Quota counselling as an Other Backward Class—Non-Creamy Layer (OBC-NCL) candidate after having applied for the examination under the general category, a Single Judge Bench of K. Surender, J. held that a candidate who failed to avail the prescribed opportunities to correct the category in the application could not seek a change after the declaration of results, particularly when the counselling rules expressly prohibited such alterations.
Background
The petitioner appeared for NEET-UG 2026 under the general category. After the results were declared on 16 July 2026 and counselling commenced on 5 August 2026, she applied for an OBC-NCL certificate, which was issued on 12 September 2026 and remained valid until 31 March 2027.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking direction to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to accept and verify the newly issued certificate and permit her to participate in counselling under the OBC-NCL category.
She contended that a number of seats fall vacant in the OBC-NCL category, and that her inclusion at the bottom of the OBC-NCL merit list would not prejudice other eligible candidates, as her candidature would be considered only after the existing candidates had been accommodated and only if seats remained vacant.
The National Testing Agency (Respondent 3) opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner, having applied as a general category candidate, could not seek a change of category after the results. It stated that a public notice dated 11 March 2026 had provided a correction window for the application form from 12 to 14 March 2026, which she did not use, and that entertaining such requests would disrupt the orderly conduct of the selection process.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner had applied for an OBC-NCL certificate only after the NEET-UG results had been declared. Her case was therefore not one involving the correction of a defective certificate establishing an entitlement already claimed during the application process.
The Court distinguished Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779, observing that the Supreme Court had dealt with a defective certificate that was subsequently corrected, rather than a request to change the candidate’s category after the examination results.
The Court also considered the MCC’s NEET-UG Counselling 2026 Information Bulletin, revised on 20 August 2026. Clauses 8 and 9 under “Information for Candidates” provided that requests to change information submitted during online registration would not be entertained, expressly including category changes. The particulars entered on the NTA portal would be pre-populated and used for counselling.
Rejecting the petitioner’s proposal to place her at the bottom of the OBC-NCL merit list, the Court held that such placement presupposed eligibility for inclusion in that list. The availability of vacant seats and the assurance that no existing candidate would be displaced could not override the applicable counselling requirements.
The Court further observed that the decision in A.L. Vivek v. National Board of Examinations (NBE)1, which granted consideration at the bottom of the OBC merit list for a postgraduate course, did not by itself establish an automatic entitlement to similar relief in every admission process, particularly where Division Bench decisions had addressed the impermissibility of post-result category changes.
The Court referred to the Division Bench decision in NTA v. M. Vikram Balaji2, which declined a candidate’s request to change the communal category after the declaration of results, as it would affect the All India merit ranking list. The Court held that it was bound by the principle laid down by the Division Bench on that issue, and that the relief in A.L. Vivek could not be adopted merely because the petitioner offered to be placed at the bottom of the reserved-category list.
The Madras High Court held that the petitioner could not seek a change from the general category to OBC-NCL after the declaration of results when the prescribed opportunities for correction had already been provided and the applicable counselling rules prohibited such alterations.
Finding no grounds to grant the relief sought, the Court dismissed the writ petition without costs.
[Keerthi V. v. Secretary, Medical Counselling Committee, W.P. No. 38727 of 2026, decided on 6-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ms. M. Sneha, Advocate
For National Testing Agency: Ms. Sunita Kumari, Standing Counsel
1. W.P. No. 6182 of 2020.
2. W.A.(MD) No. 739 of 2019
